User talk:Fastily

File:Guinea-Bissau FF (logo).png

Hi Fastily. Would you mind taking a look at File:Guinea-Bissau FF (logo).png? It was just updated, but now it seems to be no different than File:Guinea-Bissau FA.png. I sort of asked about this at WT:NFCC#Updating non-free logos, but I'm pretty sure that two files of what appear to be the same logo are needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks for letting me know, I've reverted the overwritten file. Regards, Fastily 09:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about WP:AUTHOR

Hey, I hope you are well. I want to get clarification on whether I am right or wrong. If there are two independent reviews available from reliable sources about a book, then does the author pass WP:AUTHOR’s 3rd rule? The reviews are from well known reliable source like The Hindu, Your answer will assist me a lot. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 10:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Grabup. I seldom get involved with notability concerns, so I'm probably not the best person to discuss hypothetical situations with. If you have a concrete example you can share, then I might be able to help. -Fastily 02:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The book name is “The Book of India Ghosts” here are two reviews: The Hindu and The HinduBusinessline. Can these two reviews which are independent reliable, make the author of the book notable? GrabUp - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU) is considered a reliable source, can't speak to the latter though. You might wish to inquire about this at RSN -Fastily 04:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. For your confirmation, the second one is also considered reliable. Though it is not mentioned in WP:Perennial sources, it is considered reliable for film articles at WP:ICTFSOURCES, which indicates its reliability and acceptance. GrabUp - Talk 04:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Contesting Speedy Deletion of User Page

Hello Fastily,

I find it extremely perplexing and disheartening that my user page, User Secular Naturalism, has been tagged for speedy deletion under the claim that it is promotional. The page was created in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, focusing on personal information, interests relevant to Wikipedia's mission, and my contributions to the platform. Here is the content of the page in question:

[SEO spam removed]

The page includes typical user page content: a brief biography, a summary of my philosophical interests, a list of my contributions, and a sandbox link. It does not serve as an advertisement but rather as a personal introduction and an organizational tool for my activities on Wikipedia.

I strongly urge a reconsideration of the deletion tag, as the content aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines for user pages. If there are specific issues, I am more than willing to make necessary adjustments. However, tagging this page for deletion without a proper review seems unwarranted and undermines the efforts of active contributors.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards, Secular Naturalism Secular Naturalism (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Secular Naturalism. You may not use Wikipedia to promote your business/services or the business/services of a client. Please be advised that repeated violations of this rule will result in loss of editing privileges. Thanks, Fastily 09:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Rollback removal

Hi Fastily! I haven't had much time for working in anti-vandalism lately; would you be able to remove rollback from my account? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)